My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 110, 111 and 112, standing in my name. Clause 9 is a skeleton clause, as has been pointed out by the DPRRC, which recommended its removal—a point that may have been made a few times over the course of this Committee, often by me. In giving this degree of power to repeal existing legislation around consumer protection and metrology regulations by negative procedure, the Government have argued that aspects of the regulatory regime may need to be updated swiftly and frequently. However, they have failed to explain why they should be done with little scrutiny. In their response to the DPRRC, they suggested that it is because existing legislation has proven ineffective at times. The most recent consultation on the Bill suggested that 87% of respondents supported reviewing inspection powers, but it is one thing to review powers and another to have the power to completely repeal existing legislation and replace it with whatever an undefined—that word again—relevant authority feels is necessary.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for his thoughts on Amendment 110. He is not in his place but I wish him a happy birthday, as I am sure most Members of the Committee do too. I am very grateful for his opinions, some of which I am incorporating in my next remarks. On Amendment 110, he pointed out that the Government are proposing to take the power to repeal Part 2 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. If they were to do so, we would lose Section 2, which sets out primarily that the Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of securing goods that are safe. We would also lose Section 19, which defines “safe”. Section 19(1)(c) includes that “safe” means,
“there is no risk, or no risk apart from one reduced to a minimum, that … the keeping, use or consumption of the goods”
will
“cause the death of, or any personal injury to, any person”,
and that “unsafe” should be “construed accordingly”. The Bill does not make the equivalent provision: “reducing or mitigating risks” in Clause 1 is lesser than “safe” as defined, and the 1987 legislation has a long history of implementation, interpretation and enforcement.
At this late stage of the Bill, the question is: is it His Majesty’s Government’s intention to repeal Sections 2 and 19 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987? If it is not, we can assess the overall legislative framework which will result. If it is, we will need to revisit this issue when looking again at the purpose of the Bill. If His Majesty’s Government say they will decide later and seek to avoid overlap, we should again look at how this Bill and how the Consumer Protection Act 1987 may overlap, and consider whether the continuation of a defined requirement for safe products should be included in the Bill.
The other two amendments follow a very similar vein. I think I have said enough, and I beg to move.